Jon Venables Face And Name Revealed

BECAUSE someone has posted what he claims to be photos of Jon Venables on the internet, one of James Bulger’s killers will have to be given a new identity and be re-housed (he was living in Cheshire).

A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice says:

“Such a change of identity is extremely rare and granted only when the police assess that there is clear and credible evidence of a sustained threat to the offender’s life on release into the community.”

The activist, who again The Sun cannot name, said: “The picture has now been seen by millions. I don’t believe Jon Venables or any convicted sex offender has the right to anonymity or a protected identity. It is the public that needs protection.”

How is the public protected by being shown photos of a man the State says cannot be named nor revealed for his own safety? Have we lost faith in the system and the rule of law, achieved by consensus?

Ralph Bulger, James’ dad, was not at the Old Bailey yesterday to see Venables jailed for two years.

But his solicitor Robin Makin was there on his behalf and believes the authorities have to answer for their actions.

He also said they had hoped Venables would be given an indefinite jail term for public protection (IPP).

Mr Makin said: “No-one has taken into account the danger this man poses. The public was not protected in this case.

“We are upset because no-one considered a sexual element in the original crime, the murder of James, so it could not be brought up here to show past history…

“It was a ticking timebomb waiting to go off, putting him so close to Liverpool and to the scene of it all. It will only have upped the pressure. They gave him a new identity but if he was so close, that cannot have helped.”

Incidentally, the Omand Review details the build-up to Venables’ re-arrest and the way in which he was living, how he was ‘coping’, his relationships with others, etc. Makes for a very interesting insight.
Apologies if this shouldn’t be in the public domain, I just found it online; all personal details have already been blanked out.

It’s interesting that the ardent ‘they should have been hanged at 10′ lot were always insistent that they had better lives than had they not killed a child. The Omand report paints a very different picture – there is no doubt Jon Venables life was utterly miserable and that he didn’t posess any coping skills whasoever. Or even basic life skills for that matter.

And yes, what the hell were social services doing with the Thompsons? At least two kids were taken into care; Anne’s mental health problems (including suicide attempts) and dependency issues (tranquillisers and alcohol) were well known. There were suspicions that one of the brothers was involved in the abuse of boys (one of the victims, it is now believed was Robert himself) and social workers knew that the household was one of almost daily violence and neglect. Apparently their house burning down was considered an accident but given that one of the brothers was a known arsonist, it does make you wonder. Ironically, before the crime, Robert didn’t have the reputation for violence that his brothers’ had. He was also, despite his low attainment at school owing to absence; intelligent and I think this probably contributed to his better outcome on release as much as anything else.

And when I read the Omand report, it became crystal clear that how Venables was to have a sexual life wasn’t even considered when he was being released – all they considered was potential physical risk to the public. I’m guessing then that there was absolutely no help/therapy in this area despite the fact that his entire adolescence (and one would think sexual development) would have been negatively affected by institutionalisation.

Ann

Agreed, the blood-bayers should, if they can manage it, have a look at this report. It paints a pretty grim picture of his miserable life. He hasn’t been living in luxury or pampered.
What you say about intelligence is true. Once again, I will return to the Mary Bell case: MB was obviously highly intelligent, whereas her co-defendant Norma was deemed slow despite being older. MB took the complete rap for the deaths and Norma got off free with no follow-ups because she was ‘led’. (I’ve always thought this was wrong, and that she should have at least been given counselling.) Anyway, while MB never offended again, Norma appears to have been greatly disturbed though to adulthood, and couldn’t hold a job down because she became obsessed with talking about what happened to all and sundry. She also exhibited behaviour such as staring out the window for hours. It sounds to me like PTSD. (All in the first Sereny book.)
Thompson was believed the ‘leader’ of the two, and as far as we know, has managed his life acceptably afterwards. Venables, considered the weaker one, has not. Although said to be of normal intelligence, at the time I think that can be questioned by a drawing he’d done at the time along with a mini-essay of an IQ well below a ten year old. He also seems less mature by, what I think, is the failure to grasp the severity and reality of his current situation. If we are to believe (!) the tabloids this week, he apparently sees this latest identity leak as a rationale for why he should be allowed to live abroad in sunny climes, as if they’d permit him entry. I’d take that with a pinch of salt, but I would not be completely surprised.
Thus, does rehabilitation merely stem down to the offender’s intelligence? I don’t want to think so, but a disheartening thought.

Emma

I think intelligence adds another layer of resiliance in this situation. Also, I believe Thompson went onto higher education (art school I think) and he probably managed to carve out a more meaningful life and better employment. There is also the possibility that the fact that he was bright made him more able to engage with the therapy in a more thorough way.

I also think Venables was diagnosed with ADHD – something which would have made him hyperactive and lacking consequential thinking.

If you go into the average prison, you find very few ‘evil geniuses’. You find people at the bottom of the pile – both socially and culturally. People who are illiterate, with learning difficulties, mental health problems etc.

I’ve always believed the common assumption that Thompson led, Venables followed to be simplistic. This opinion was formed by the police officers largely (Kirby and Roberts) and Kirby has all but admitted now it may have been prejudice on their part because of their past dealings with the Thompson family and how Thompson behaved under questionning compared to Venables (Thompson calm and cocky; Venables hysterical – wailing like a banshee and not being able to sit still).

I also agree, Ann, about Norma Bell. Certainly today, she would be considered part of a joint enterprise and would have received some sentence – even if it was being sectionned under a care order.

Emma

By the way, going back to the Omand review, I notice at one point it talks about the various bits of gossip that have dogged the case since the release of the pair (both for Thompson and Venables) mentioning that almost all of it was untrue. It did say that there was one report of 2006, however, which was true enough to have come directly from someone who knew the case intimately and that person had to be removed from the case.

“He had to tell his partner of the murder to meet the strict conditions of his release, which force him to be honest about his past if he forms close relationships.”

This was a condition the general public did not know of before (indeed, much of the nonsense in the tabloids concerned how terrible it was that the young men could date and marry and their respective partners have no idea who they were or what they had done). There was no reason to believe this report over any others until Jon Venables’ barrister gave the statement last year outside the court using practically the same phrase:

‘But he had to lie to friends about his true identity and was unable to form a close relationship with a woman, as he would have to disclose his true identity as a condition of his licence’.

Also, there was speculation about Robert Thompson’s sexuality way before this report.

If it is true, it would go some way to explaining why Thompson has been more successful – he has managed to form a positive relationship with someone he can be truthful with.

Ann

I think you’re right about that being the article. I can’t see how anyone else would know that. Good deduction there! Yes, the relationship no doubt helped him. Venables obviously did himself no favours, choosing such young girls, they wouldn’t hold much support. (Were they both 17?) Does the Ormand report say if he told them about himself? I can’t remember, it was a while ago since I read it and it’s very long.

That doesn’t surprise me about Kirby. I don’t know what to make of him. After watching the Venables documentary that aired a few weeks ago, I find it strange and terrible that after all these years after the event, he still maintains that they were ‘born evil’ and other magical nonsense words. So he still hasn’t changed his tune since 1993, even with the amount of information that’s been gathered about their backgrounds and other circumstances. No excusing them, and he’s entitled to hate them as most people do, especially after what he saw first-hand, but using such archaic, obsolete explanations comes off as unprofessional. Especially a man with his authority, as he’s now risen up the ranks.

Emma

I’ve found another case. That of a five year old thrown off a roof by two boys (one 10, one 11). This was in the US (Chicago). Now this is interesting because people frequently yell about how Thompson and Venables would have received a much harsher sentence in the US (probably life imprisonment). This shows that it is simply not true.

Not only were they given the MAXIMUM of ten years with the possibility of being released earlier; but like Thompson and Venables, they were sentenced to secure care homes rather than prison with rehabilitation, not punishment being the aim.

UNLIKE Thompson and Venables, their names were never released to the media.

Emma

Another one – 12 year old Lionel Tate killed a 6 year old girl (horrifically violent killing).

The crime was so severe that an original sentence of life without parole was given. This was overturned (like Howard’s extension of the Bulger sentence, it was declared unlawful). In fact, the prosecutors were so horrified by the judge’s sentence that they helped the defence in the appeal!

His sentence in the very punitive USA? 1 year house arrest, 10 years probation (so not even custody).

Even the discovery of a knife in his possession during the time he was supposed to be on probation didn’t get him sent back to prison.

However, he violated the probation through an armed robbery and was given a 30 year sentence later. This (despite the apparent severity) is likely to be nothing like 30 years and he will likely only serve 10 years (probably less) – like the UK, 50% of a finite sentence is the norm in the US but unlike the UK, a convict can get even more off that with good behaviour.

Virgil

According to the late Gitta Sereny, Jon Venables had surgery to correct his squint performed on him sometime in the fall of 1992, so a few months before he killed James Bulger. (The fact is also mentioned in passing by David James Smith in THE SLEEP OF REASON.)

Invasive surgery – squint (strabismus/”lazy eye”) operations in particular – are well-known to trauma experts to sometimes trigger devastating PTSD symptoms in children (and even some adults) who undergo them. For scared children, the body experiences the invasive surgery as a kind of rape. (See Peter A. Levine’s books for in-depth discussion of this topic.)

It’s perfectly possible – though not yet known – that Venables suffered PTSD in the wake of his operation. Couple this with abuse and neglect at home, as well as bullying and humiliation at school and around the neighbourhood, and there more than sufficient conditions in his life to trigger a full-blown panic-rage attack.

In other words: you don’t have to “want” or “plan” to kill a person in order to kill them. All you have to be is simmering with untreated PTSD, and have no proper outlet and nobody to help you. (Denial and indifference seem to have been the modus operandi of his parents and teachers alike.)

When pitchfork-waving morons and subliterate ignoramuses declare that they will never “forgive” Venables for his “monstrous,” “sadistic” crime, this sounds suspiciously to me like saying they can’t forgive him for belonging to the animal kingdom, born with all the same instincts, drives, and survival mechanisms (the product of millions of years of evolution) as any other animal. They are vilifying – and fantasising about torturing him to death – for the “crime” of being an organism.

There is, it goes without saying, no actual proof that he sexually abused James, or that the murder was premeditated, and saying that he sadistically “tortured” James is a bit like saying the grizzly bear that killed Timothy Treadwell in Werner Herzog’s GRIZZLY MAN consciously “plotted” to “torture” him as well. It’s a lazy misuse of language to keep claiming that Bulger was “tortured” – he was only “tortured” in the same sense Treadwell was “tortured” – that is, fierce and brutal instinctual violence was inflicted upon him. The infliction of such violence is horrific, but it doesn’t prove Venables a psychopath any more than it proves wild animals (bears, lions, tigers, wolves) to be “psychopaths.”

John Smith

Virgil’s talking complete bullshit,how can anybody defend the acts of these sick arseholes by comparing them to wild animals,animals kill out of instinct in order to survive,you prick!

Virgil

“animals kill out of instinct in order to survive”

So do human beings, who are also part of the animal kingdom and also driven to a great degree by survival instincts. There’s not one facet of animal behaviour that doesn’t have its counterpart among humans. Ultimately, the blame for James’ death lies with the adult authority figures and caregivers who failed these two boys, and consequently indirectly failed James as well.

Netcourt798

Emma and C&C should also answer a question themselves: would YOU be reacting as calmly on your keyboard and quoting law if it were YOUR child who was snatched from you, marched more than 2 miles and dropped on the head along the way, mutilated, tortured, battered, genitals ruptured and left to be sliced in 2 by a freight train? I’m sure Emma feels very comfortable on her ivory tower throne but the fact that you resort to personal attacks says so much about yourself and level (lack?) of maturity in engaging in discussions. Check your own posts because there are ridiculous mistakes there too. Your reference to the 19th century case seems to say that the kid spent 8 years locked up and release in 1999!!!! Get a calculator honey! And don’t tell me that you both would not be feeling ANY anger if you had children and one of them was murdered the way James was. And Emma saying you have children, well…any faceless person on the internet can say that. You CLEARLY DON’T!! And please don’t post things like “Good post so-and-so”. That’s so condescending – as if everyone here requires your seal of approval with their posts.

And whoever said that JV was abused – he WASN’T! Check your facts!

Also, I agree with John. Virgil’s post is complete nonsense.

While I agree that the two 10-year-olds may not have been as emotionally, socially and intellectually developed compared to adulthood, they still knew what they were doing and knew that it was wrong. If you’re old enough to do the crime, then you’re sure as hell old enough to do the time!! This is not a run off the mill violent murder case. Police officers who witnessed the scene of the murder were said to be never the same again. And it wasn’t even their child. So Emma and C&C, if it were your child, I think you both would also be resorting to mob violence, especially Emma who can resort to personal attacks in internet forums as it is.

The system seems to have spent all available effort and resources on the criminals with none spent to assist the victim’s family to move on. Shameful! Take a page from the Norwegian system, people! It’s no wonder that more than 20 years later, the mob is still baying for blood.